Trump’s attorneys used a motion in limine to keep what’s been going on with his presidential run away from the jurors in the class action against him related to Trump University. This is just the type of situation a motion in limine is perfect to address. Indeed, the greatest value of in limine motions lies in a party’s ability to confront prejudicial evidence before it’s presented at trial and comes to a jury’s attention.

If it appears that opposing counsel intends to introduce or refer to unduly prejudicial evidence, making a motion in limine to exclude the evidence is the best option.

To get fullest benefit of a motion in limine, request a court order that specifically

bars the parties, their attorneys, and witnesses from referring to the prejudicial evidence in the jury’s presence at any time during trial—including during voir dire, opening statement, examination of witnesses, and closing argument, and

directs opposing counsel to instruct his or her client and witnesses not to refer to the evidence and to follow the court’s order.

When you’re asking the trial judge to exclude evidence under Evid C §352 because it may cause “undue” prejudice, i.e, it has a danger of evoking an unfair or overwhelming personal bias while having little probative value, keep in mind that you can’t compel the court to exclude evidence under §352. You can only ask the court to invoke its discretion. If the court declines to exercise its discretionary power, on appeal you’ll have to make a clear showing on the record that the trial court abused its discretion.

Given this discretionary dynamic, you need to clearly identify the evidence you want excluded and put that evidence in the proper context so that the judge has enough background information to make an informed decision.

In their motion in limine, Law 360 reports that Trump’s lawyers argued that the jurors can use the ballot box to judge Mr. Trump on the allegations of misconduct and inflammatory statements, “[b]ut it is in the jury box where they must judge him and this case only on evidence and argument relevant to the issues at hand.” It will be interesting to see how this motion, and the case itself, turns out.

About the Blog Manager

Other Links

Disclaimer

This blog is not intended to reflect the position of the State Bar of California or of the University of California. The content is provided with the understanding that CEB does not render any legal, accounting, or other professional service. Attorneys using CEBblog™ should research original sources of authority. Any CEB publication cited is not intended to describe the standard of care for attorneys in any community, but rather to be of assistance to attorneys in providing high quality service to their clients and in protecting their own interests. CEBblog™ is hosted by WordPress and is governed by WordPress’ Privacy Policy. Any information transmitted to CEB from or about CEBblog™ is governed by CEB’s Privacy Policy.